Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"For us, the Holocaust survivors, our moral obligation is to legalize it."
New frontiers in coalition politics:
No, that isn't a joke. The Associated Press has more:
On Tuesday, a party representing Israeli Holocaust survivors joined forces with the pro-marijuana Green Leaf party for a run at Israel's parliament. The new party launched its campaign in a near-empty, underground, graffiti-filled nightclub in south Tel Aviv, pledging to pursue two primary goals: to financially assist elderly Holocaust survivors and to legalize the consumption of cannabis....
[Yaakov] Kfir, the party's No. 2 candidate, said he has never experimented with drugs, but after learning much from his new colleagues was eager to try. "But only when it is legal," he said.
Lesbian Until Graduation|1.31.09 @ 11:28AM|#
" graffiti-filled nightclub in south Tel Aviv"
I immediately got the image of Brian from "The Life of Brian"
painting graffiti in Latin on a wall and a Roman soldier correcting
his Latin grammar.
|1.31.09 @ 11:40AM|#
David Irving came out against this legalization today. He
objected to the "Holocaust survivors" part.
I immediately got the image of Brian from "The Life of Brian"
painting graffiti in Latin on a wall and a Roman soldier correcting
his Latin grammar.
That scene gives me flashbacks to my Latin teacher every time I see
it. I think they're all like that.
"Vocative plural of annus is...?"
Lesbian Until Graduation|1.31.09 @ 11:49AM|#
CENTURION:
Vocative plural of 'annus' is...?
BRIAN:
Eh. 'Anni'?
CENTURION:
'Romani'. 'Eunt'? What is 'eunt'?
BRIAN:
'Go'. Let--
CENTURION:
Conjugate the verb 'to go'.
BRIAN:
Uh. 'Ire'. Uh, 'eo'. 'Is'. 'It'. 'Imus'. 'Itis'. 'Eunt'.
CENTURION:
So 'eunt' is...?
BRIAN:
Ah, huh, third person plural, uh, present indicative. Uh, 'they
go'.
CENTURION:
But 'Romans, go home' is an order, so you must use the...?
BRIAN:
The... imperative!
CENTURION:
Which is...?
BRIAN:
Umm! Oh. Oh. Um, 'i'. 'I'!
CENTURION:
How many Romans?
BRIAN:
Ah! 'I'-- Plural. Plural. 'Ite'. 'Ite'.
CENTURION:
'Ite'.
BRIAN:
Ah. Eh.
CENTURION:
'Domus'?
BRIAN:
Eh.
CENTURION:
Nominative?
BRIAN:
Oh.
CENTURION:
'Go home'? This is motion towards. Isn't it, boy?
BRIAN:
Ah. Ah, dative, sir! Ahh! No, not dative! Not the dative, sir! No!
Ah! Oh, the... accusative! Accusative! Ah! 'Domum', sir! 'Ad
domum'! Ah! Oooh! Ah!
CENTURION:
Except that 'domus' takes the...?
BRIAN:
The locative, sir!
CENTURION:
Which is...?!
BRIAN:
'Domum'.
CENTURION:
'Domum'.
BRIAN:
Aaah! Ah.
CENTURION:
'Um'. Understand?
BRIAN:
Yes, sir.
CENTURION:
Now, write it out a hundred times.
I believe drugs are bad mmkay,|1.31.09 @ 11:57AM|#
after learning much from his new colleagues was eager to
try. "But only when it is legal"
For those who believe drugs are bad mmkay, this testimony supports
prohibition.
bruce|1.31.09 @ 12:20PM|#
no, "i believe drugs are bad...", this testimony only supports prohibition if you also believe that you have the right to legislate your morality over your neighbors and total strangers. i don't acknowledge this right. "libertarianism" comes from "liberty" which is essentially personal freedom of choice, mmkay?
mmkay|1.31.09 @ 12:34PM|#
To amplify:
There are those who say prohibiting alcohol doesn't reduce
alcohol-created or -exacerbated problems, because drinkers will
drink whether or not it's illegal.
Then a would-be drinker comes along and testifies that he'll stay
abstinent until alcohol is legalized. Or someone says the same of
gambling, unhealthy food, or other vices.
Wouldn't that give ammunition to the results-oriented legislator
(of which I am not one)?
bruce|1.31.09 @ 1:01PM|#
mmkay, the people you describe exist only in fairytales. when the original prohibition came along, the drinking class went right on drinking, scarcely missing a drop. jurisdictions that have tried to eliminate gambling merely drive it underground. marijuana smokers aren't deterred in the slightest by laws, if anything, forbidden fruit has a certain cachet. the closest the government has come to triumphing over vice is in the tobacco arena, and it did so not through prohibition, but through education, changes in social attitudes and most of all, higher taxes. that's the way to attack vice.
|1.31.09 @ 1:08PM|#
if anything, forbidden fruit has a certain cachet. the
closest the government has come to triumphing over vice is in the
tobacco arena, and it did so not through prohibition, but through
education, changes in social attitudes and most of all, higher
taxes. that's the way to attack vice.
It works until taxes become so onerous that organized crime finds
it irresistible to step in. We have reached that point with tobacco
in certain jurisdictions.
BakedPenguin|1.31.09 @ 1:50PM|#
As for the pot party + holocaust survivors, that's great, but I doubt that they will have much of an impact. IIRC, Likud & Labor are pretty much the Republicans & Democrats of Israel.
mmkay|1.31.09 @ 1:51PM|#
the people you describe exist only in fairytales
And, at least for prospective first-time users, in the article
above: >[Yaakov] Kfir, the party's No. 2 candidate, said he has
never experimented with drugs, but after learning much from his new
colleagues was eager to try. "But only when it is legal," he
said.
Naga Sadow|1.31.09 @ 2:02PM|#
BakedPenguin,
I'll show you why. Which sounds better?
1. KEEP DOPE ALIVE!!!
2. KEEP CIGARETTES ALIVE!!!
There will be a test so please think hard before you answer.
Smartass|1.31.09 @ 2:02PM|#
Is this why the IDF can't remember that their last incursion
against Gaza didn't work out, so they keep trying it.
"Dude, I know. We could just go in there with tanks and knock
everything down...why haven't we tried that before."
|1.31.09 @ 2:11PM|#
This seems a good thread to throw this tidbit into.
Was out to dinner last night with a friend who is an ADA in
Manhattan, and I mentioned to her the info that's been posted here
about the increase in NY marijuana arrests and the phenomenon of
cops tricking minority kids into showing pot "in plain view" to get
a misdemeanor bust rather than a violation.
She said she was unsurprised that cops would do that. However, she
also said that it is NY DA policy not to prosecute any simple
marijuana possession charges. According to her, those kids would
have their charges reduced to simple possession, a violation, and
would get off with a fine.
Not that that takes away the stupidity of arresting them in the
first place, but hey, at least they're not getting tossed in
prison.
Another interesting tidbit, related to the debates here over jury
nullification and the drug laws: she said from doing voir dire, she
would guess that a majority of New Yorkers would refuse to find
anybody guilty of a marijuana possession charge if it involved them
going to jail anyway. She also said she sees sizable minorities who
declare during jury selection that they will categorically refuse
to convict on a drug charge because they disagree with the drug
laws.
|1.31.09 @ 2:16PM|#
Special weekend thread jack for SugarFree - the NY Times
profiles America's dying lesbian separatist communities, aka
womyn's lands:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/fashion/01womyn.html?_r=1&hp
Elemenope|1.31.09 @ 2:24PM|#
1. KEEP DOPE ALIVE!!!
This seems counterproductive. You have to kill the dope to smoke
it, no?
juror emeritus|1.31.09 @ 2:48PM|#
from doing voir dire, she would guess that a majority of New
Yorkers would refuse to find anybody guilty of a marijuana
possession charge if [insert: they knew]
it involved them going to jail anyway.
When I served on criminal juries in NYC, we were not told
penalties.
|1.31.09 @ 2:52PM|#
When I served on criminal juries in NYC, we were not told
penalties.
True enough. In the opinion of this one prosecutor, many juries
would balk at issuing guilty verdicts in marijuana possession
cases. Better?
|1.31.09 @ 3:06PM|#
when the original prohibition came along, the drinking class
went right on drinking, scarcely missing a drop.
Actually, there was a bit more to it than that. For one thing, a
lot of people started drinking on principle. Another effect is that
people switched from beer at wine to hard liquor.
-jcr
|1.31.09 @ 3:08PM|#
When I served on criminal juries in NYC, we were not told
penalties
That severely undermines the purpose of trial by jury.
-jcr
|1.31.09 @ 3:32PM|#
DBCooper,
That story was depressing. What a pack of sexist pigs.
-jcr
True, it is pretty depressing to think that people would
voluntarily adopt such misandrist/isolationist attitudes and
behaviours, but it was good to read that they are dying out. And
mildly amusing to boot.
juror emeritus|1.31.09 @ 3:36PM|#
When I served on criminal juries in NYC, we were not told
penalties
That severely undermines the purpose of trial by jury.
Not disputing, just asking: Why?
Juries are instructed to judge only of the facts of the case; the
judge then is to apply the law. Whether he dunnit or no-dunnit is
the peer-laymen's province; sentencing is the legislators', applied
by the judge - at least that's what we were told. And knowledge of
the penalties are withheld lest they bias a tender-hearted jury, or
I spoze a too tough-hearted jury that might say, "Ah, it's only a
short sentence/a small fine - so even if we're not sure beyond a
reasonable doubt, guys like him should learn a lesson."
|1.31.09 @ 3:40PM|#
Special weekend thread jack for SugarFree - the NY Times
profiles America's dying lesbian separatist communities, aka
womyn's lands:
NutraSweet will just change that article in his mind to them all
being 25-year-old lipstick lesbians having pillowfights and
building a fake jail to do prison S&M on the property.
You know what he's like.
Elemenope|1.31.09 @ 4:00PM|#
Juries are instructed to judge only of the facts of the
case; the judge then is to apply the law.
And this is a fairly recent mutation in the law. Juries were
originally conceived as the authority on both facts *and* law. Jury
nullification is a surviving vestige of this conception.
Wiki, as usual, is a good place to
start.
bruce|1.31.09 @ 4:01PM|#
oh mmkay, you exhibit such a charming naivete, i hate to
disabuse you of your illusions, but since this is the internet and
i don't have to look at you while doing it...
yaakov kfir, the man in the article, wasn't being completely
honest. anybody who says "yes, i'd love to smoke dope if it were
legal..." lolol. a guy like this, if you look deep in the back of
his closet, you will find something like a giant purple fluorescent
bong, and when you ask him what it is, he'll say something like "i
have no idea, i just found it one day on the sidewalk, i'm hoping
maybe you can tell me what it is."
Elemenope|1.31.09 @ 4:12PM|#
bruce,
This may come as a shock to you, but some people actually say
things like that and mean it. Your cynicism is, I suppose,
understandable, but the default assumption that anyone who does not
immediately leap into categories defined by your conception of
human nature must be lying is not very helpful.
Kolohe|1.31.09 @ 4:17PM|#
t is pretty depressing to think that people would
voluntarily adopt such misandrist/isolationist attitudes and
behaviours,
There is nothing wrong with *isolationist* attitudes. And for that
matter, heck, hate me all you want; as long as you leave me alone,
I'll leave you alone. That their communities have the same
sustainability issues as the Shakers is not surprising. But if they
want to live on the beach or in a commune on their own land, more
power to them.
I did find this snippet from the stroy amusing though:
The communities, most in rural areas from Oregon to Florida, have as few as two members; Alapine is one of the largest.
Um, *two* people is not a community. It's barely a household.
They're just roommates, like Uncle Steve and Aunt Fred.
Pendulum|1.31.09 @ 4:41PM|#
As for the pot party + holocaust survivors, that's great,
but I doubt that they will have much of an impact. IIRC, Likud
& Labor are pretty much the Republicans & Democrats of
Israel.
BakedPenguin, neither of those parties are currently in power!
Rather, the Kadima party is in power. Labor runs a distant third,
and barely qualifies as a major party these days. In addition,
other parties with parlimentary representation include a far-left
party, a variety of ultra-orthodox parties, and Arab parties.
If only we could get a bit of that political diversity here - minus
the clannishness on ethnic and religious lines, of course.
bruce|1.31.09 @ 4:46PM|#
i'm not gonna argue with lmnop over unprovable matters, just thank him for the lulz. kolohe, on the other hand...have you never heard the term "community property" in a divorce case? just what community do you suppose it refers to?
BakedPenguin|1.31.09 @ 4:51PM|#
NutraSweet will just change that article in his mind to them all being 25-year-old lipstick lesbians having pillowfights and building a fake jail to do prison S&M on the property.
You say this like there's something wrong with doing that.
BakedPenguin|1.31.09 @ 4:54PM|#
...the Kadima party is in power.
Oh. Obviously, I haven't been paying attention.
If only we could get a bit of that political diversity here...
Agreed.
Kolohe|1.31.09 @ 4:58PM|#
If only we could get a bit of that political diversity here
- minus the clannishness on ethnic and religious lines, of
course.
Hypothesis: Mutliparty democracies with such 'political diversity'
will always have clannishness of ethnic and religious identities as
a core element of the minor parties.
For instance, in no particular order
Bloc Québécois
Scottish National Party*
States' Rights Democratic Party (aka Dixiecrats)
(extinct)
And then there's places like spain where ethnically distinct
regions like Catalonia and Basque have their own avatars of the
national party.
*actually looking a wikipedia, it's smaller than I thought, only
about 5 of the close to 60 scottish seats in the UK parliment)
Kolohe|1.31.09 @ 5:01PM|#
have you never heard the term "community property" in a
divorce case? just what community do you suppose it refers
to?
Fair enough, but the legal definition of 'community' has little
bearing on the anthropological meaning of 'community' which is how
it was used in that article.
BakedPenguin|1.31.09 @ 5:06PM|#
Kolohe - I don't think there's anything that necessitates multiparty politics leading to ethnic tribalism. I think the existing ethnic / tribal bullshit leads to its expression in multiparty politics. (I also think your current location may be coloring your thinking on this a tad).
|1.31.09 @ 5:18PM|#
From the "womyn's land" article:
Ms. Greene trims branches of oak, hickory and sassafras trees
and stops by the grave of a deer she buried in the woods after it
was hit by a car. She named it Miracle. "I talk to Miracle every
day," Ms. Greene said. "That is one of my joys of living
here."
So, they're communities of retarded lesbians. That makes
much more sense.
Kolohe|1.31.09 @ 5:27PM|#
(I also think your current location may be coloring your
thinking on this a tad).
Actually, the Hawaiian sovereignty movement is a minority within a
minority. Multi party politics here would actually likely break
down along class or ideological lines rather than ethnic ones. (as
it is they're approaching a single party Democratic state more
lopsided than anywhere else other than the municipal govt of DC).
At least quarter of the people here are of 'mixed race', more than
any other state, and the number would go up if one would consider
Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, and Pacific Islander as distinct
races, which the census does not. So imo this is indeed closer than
anywhere else in the US to a post-racial society. Not that it
doesn't exist. But the insider-outsider dynamic is much
stronger.
Mad Max|1.31.09 @ 5:32PM|#
As for jury nullification, let's distinguish between a jury
nullifying a law and a jury simply adopting an interpretation of
the law different from the interpretation of the trial judge.
The latter is *not* nullification, and judges used to tell juries
they could do it. The U.S. Supreme Court said so in 1793. While the
trial judge's interpretation was the best evidence of what the law
was, the jury could choose to interpret the law differently. Then
in the 19th century, the judges changed their minds, and told
juries that they must assume conclusively that the trial judge's
legal interpretation is the correct one. If the judge got it wrong,
the correction of the error was for the appellate court, not the
jury. That means that a person can be convicted based on an
incorrect legal interpretation and only set free later (if at all)
if an appeals court catches the misinterpretation, which would
require the defendant to spend extra legal fees (to the legal
profession, that's a feature, not a bug).
Nullification is a different concept. It's when the jury believes
the law requires result A, but they go for result B.
By the way, juries are not the sole, or even primary offenders when
it comes to nullification. Cops, judges, bureaucrats, and
legislators are the main offenders in this respect. Juries are, I
think, more likely to be in awe of the rule of the law and to make
a sincere effort to apply the law as they believe it to be.
Singling out juries as if they were uniquely predisposed to nullify
represents prejudice, not an evidence-based attitude.
'marijuana smokers aren't deterred in the slightest by laws'
Look, I think the govt has better things to do than harass people
for smoking, and selling, cannabis plants and related
material.
But I *don't* agree with the assumption that legalizing the stuff
can be done without regard to the laws of supply and demand. If the
cost of something goes down, more people will do it. This applies
to cost in dollars and to cost in terms of risk of arrest, use of
black-market sources, etc.
Kolohe|1.31.09 @ 5:48PM|#
I think the existing ethnic / tribal bullshit leads to its
expression in multiparty politics.
Yes, which then reinforces and perpetuates it.
Despite it's many flaws, one of the big advantages of the two party
system in the US is that it smooths over many 'tribal', and most
'regional' differences. There is the proverbial 'blue/red' divide,
but these are always in flux, and intraregional differences (e.g.
between California and Washington state, between Maryland and
Vermont) are actually fairly dramatic. Without a two party system,
regional factionalism would have a much stronger hold, and
potentially, the US would be continuously on the brink of where it
was in 1860.
This is what makes the EU experiment so 'interesting'. In a lot of
ways they are following a parallel development with the United
States, but in many other ways, have either the complete opposite
circumstances or following an opposite path.
Elemenope|1.31.09 @ 6:21PM|#
Despite it's many flaws, one of the big advantages of the
two party system in the US is that it smooths over many 'tribal',
and most 'regional' differences. There is the proverbial 'blue/red'
divide, but these are always in flux, and intraregional differences
(e.g. between California and Washington state, between Maryland and
Vermont) are actually fairly dramatic. Without a two party system,
regional factionalism would have a much stronger hold, and
potentially, the US would be continuously on the brink of where it
was in 1860.
A fascinating thesis.
I think, though, that most of the effect you assign to there being
two parties is really just achieved by consequence of institutional
subsidiarity. That is, we have (fairly) powerful state governments
that do most of the dirty work when it comes to salient regional
issues.
juror emeritus|1.31.09 @ 7:19PM|#
I always wondered why the Master of Arts in Diplomacy banner ad
shows up on this page. Now I know.
As to people who refrain from trying marijuana only because it's
illegal, at least one such is personally known to me.
MNG|1.31.09 @ 7:24PM|#
"There is the proverbial 'blue/red' divide, but these are always
in flux, and intraregional differences"
What a great point, as usual, from Kolohe.
Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Max Baucus (D-MT). Think about
it.
When I lived in Virginia Democrats would even refer to themselves
as "Virginia Democrats" to make sure everyone knew "not like the
national party." Now, in Maryland the GOPers do something similar
(Ehrlich would have made a good Democrat in VA for example).
Another reason why those here, me included, who see things either
through history or currently, through a narrow
"Democrat/Republican" divide can be up to a lot of nonsense.
MNG|1.31.09 @ 7:28PM|#
I hate the drug war. I have a sibling currently incacerated for
the "crime" of giving some person what they voluntarily wanted. But
I will say that the argument that if we legalized drugs no more
people than today would use them is incorrect. It wholly craps on
the idea of incentives that makes economics the interesting area it
is. If drugs were legal then you would not have to face the
ever-present chance of all the horrors of the drug war (losing your
freedom, losing your student loans, losing your property [through
asset forfeiture, etc]) happening.
Many more people would indulge, and many of them would develop
damaging addictions. The real issue is, what kind of world do you
want to live in, one where people have autonomy over this kind of
choice, or not?
MNG|1.31.09 @ 7:37PM|#
I'm against jury nullification, but then again I don't think it's right when police, prosecutors, etc., do the same kind of thing, as Mad Max correctly described. Make your legislator change stupid laws, make them think the stupid consequences of their laws through before they pass them.
juror emeritus|1.31.09 @ 7:45PM|#
MNG, Mad Max... reasoning is on a roll!
Which must constitute the inverse of the drinking game:
Abstain!
Just Plain Brian|1.31.09 @ 7:54PM|#
Many more people would indulge, and many of them would develop damaging addictions.
I was with you up until this, and while I agree with the first part
about more people indulging, I have serious doubts about "many"
developing damaging addictions*. I suppose it depends on your
definition of "many", but in my personal experience the people that
develop damaging addictions will make do with whatever they can get
their hands on. I could be wrong, but I think most of those
destined for damaging addictions to "newly legal drug #1" would
simply be trading a prior addiction to something that was already
legal (alcohol, for example), or they would already have a problem
they developed while the drug was still illegal.
*Also, I find the idea of marijuana addiction as silly as the idea
of email addiction.
|2.1.09 @ 2:11AM|#
I find the idea of loco weed being addictive just as reactionary
as kiddie porn; as alcohol; as cocaine; as being in unicorns; and
not being moved by Helen Thomas.
Mary Jane made me what I am today. In fact look at the Congress and
you gwet an idea what regular use of this drug does to you.
Naga Sadow|2.1.09 @ 2:40AM|#
Drug addict,
What. The. Fuck. Seriously, what the fuck? Is that riddle?
|2.1.09 @ 6:55AM|#
Naga,
I think that short post from 'drug addict' had more non-sequiturs
than Naked Lunch.
|2.1.09 @ 9:12AM|#
Oh please, Pot is good. A little pot never hurt anyone.
RT
www.internet-privacy.us.tc
BakedPenguin|2.1.09 @ 9:37AM|#
But I will say that the argument that if we legalized drugs
no more people than today would use them is incorrect.
Sure. I bet a lot of people would go out and smoke pot who've never
done so. But do you really want to tell me you think a lot of
people would go out and shoot heroin, or smoke crack or crank, just
because it's suddenly legal?
Laws keep dilletantes away from drugs. Those who really want to
party, or those who use drugs to mask emotional pain, already use
drugs. (I suspect the vast majority of addicts come from the latter
group.)
Elemenope|2.1.09 @ 9:41AM|#
BP --
The missing third group is the people who want badly to use drugs
but are too naive/timid/stupid/shy/poor/unpopular to actually
secure any or know how to secure any.
I imagine this too is a non-trivial category.
BakedPenguin|2.1.09 @ 11:26AM|#
Art - he's a troll who shows up sometimes on WoD threads.
Considering his email references a country with one of the most
repressive regimes in the world, I'd say its safe to ignore him -
he's what INCIF was made for.
LMNOP - I'd put them in the dillettante category.
I also disagree with you on their number, if only for the fact that
booze is readily available, and if someone wants to use drugs that
badly, they'll take substitutes.
Syd|2.1.09 @ 11:49AM|#
Kolohe | January 31, 2009, 5:27pm | #
(I also think your current location may be coloring your thinking
on this a tad).
Actually, the Hawaiian sovereignty movement is a minority within a
minority.
Splitters!
economist|2.1.09 @ 8:48PM|#
"Make your legislator change stupid laws, make them think the
stupid consequences of their laws through before they pass
them."
That only works if one can actually affect the legislators and
there are enough people who care enough to actually organize to
change the law on some point. This won't work with drug policy,
because while most people don't really think marijuana should be
illegal, most of these people don't care enough about the issue to
work particularly hard to get the law changed, while many of the
supporters of the drug laws will move heaven and earth to keep the
laws in place.
I support jury nullification.
jtuf|2.2.09 @ 9:55PM|#
I wasn't too surprised when I read about this merger in the Jerusalem Post last week. Israeli politics are very fluid with mergers and splits happening every election cycle. Two factors cause this. First, it's relatively easy to create a new party in Israel. Second, individual politicians hold more voter sway than the parties do. Sharon was able to make Kadima and bring it to an election win in a short time, because a huge block of voters followed him to his new party. This focus on individual politicians weakens the influence of party machines.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245